At the very outset, the HRC observed that ‘[i]nequality in the enjoyment of rights by women throughout the world is deeply embedded in tradition, history and culture, including religious attitudes’, and has therefore called upon states to ‘ensure that traditional, historical, religious or cultural attitudes are not used to justify violations of women’s right to equality before the law and to equal enjoyment of all Covenant rights’.449 Thus, in its Concluding Observations, the HRC has recommended that states should ensure compliance of customary laws and practices with the rights provided in the ICCPR, in particular by means of women’s full participation in the ongoing review of customary laws and practices.450 With regard to Article 27, the HRC has invited states to report on the measures taken ‘to discharge their responsibilities in relation to cultural or religious practices within minority communities that affect the rights of women’.451 It has further spelt out that the right to cultural integrity covered by this article ‘do not authorize any State, group or person to violate the right to the equal enjoyment by women of any Covenant rights, including the right to equal protection of the law’.452 This can be the case, for instance, of discriminatory provisions regulating the membership in minority/indigenous communities as, for example, the provisions included in the Canadian Indian Act, discussed in the well known Lovelace v Canada case, according to which an Indian woman marrying a non-Indian man would lose her status as an Indian, while the same consequence was not contemplated in the event of an Indian man marrying a non-Indian woman. This is a clear example of conflict between the collective interests of the tribe to cultural integrity and the individual interest of a member to continue to enjoy his/her membership and, thus, his/her culture. As the HRC affirmed in its Concluding Observations on Canada of 2006, analysing the issue in light of both Article 3 and Article 27 of the ICCPR, ‘balancing collective and individual interests on reserves to the sole detriment of women is incompatible with the Covenant’.453 For its part, the CERD has dealt, in particular, with the customary laws on marriage and inheritance of certain ethnic groups which discriminate against women under Articles 2 and 5 (d) (iv) and (vi) of the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination. In its Concluding Observations of 2008 on Namibia, for example, it has called upon states to ensure that ‘discriminatory aspects of customary laws are not applied’.454 Also, recalling its General Recommendation No. 25 (2000) on gender-related dimensions of racial discrimination, the CERD has recommended in particular, that the state party urgently ensure that its laws, especially on marriage and inheritance, do not discriminate against women and girls of certain ethnic groups.455 46 Regarding the CESCR, it is worth recalling General Comment No. 16 (2005) on Article 3 of the ICESCR which provides for the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all the economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the ICESCR. In this document, the CESCR has acknowledged that ‘[w]omen are often denied equal enjoyment of their human rights, in particular by virtue of the lesser status ascribed to them by tradition and custom’.456 It has also underscored that women often face multiple forms of discrimination grounded, among others, on race, colour and ethnicity, in addition to gender. It should be noted that Article 3 is ‘a cross-cutting obligation and applies to all the rights contained in … the Covenant’.457 Therefore, this provision may arguably have some implications vis-à-vis Article 15, recognizing, in particular, the right of everyone to take part in cultural life, which has not yet been explored. In fact, Article 15 has been applied by the CESCR to protect the cultural heritage458 and the cultural identity459 of ethnic groups. In this respect, it is worth noting that in its General Comment No. 21 on the right of everyone to take part in cultural life460 the CESCR emphasized that: ‘[i]mplementing article 3 of the Covenant, in relation to article 15, paragraph 1 (a), requires, inter alia, the elimination of institutional and legal obstacles, as well as those based on negative practices, including those attributed to customs and traditions, that prevent women from fully participating in cultural life, science education and scientific research.’ 461 The CESCR also pointed out that ‘no one may invoke cultural diversity to infringe upon human rights guaranteed by international law, nor to limit their scope’. It went on to add that: ‘[a]pplying limitations on the right of everyone to take part in cultural life may be necessary in certain circumstances, in particular in the case of negative practices, including those attributed to customs and traditions, that infringe upon other human rights. Such limitations must pursue a legitimate aim, be compatible with the nature of this right and be strictly necessary for the promotion of the general welfare in a democratic society, in accordance with article 4 of the Covenant. Any limitations must therefore be proportionate, meaning that the least restrictive measures must be adopted when several types of limitations may be imposed.’ 462 It further highlighted that the right to take part in cultural life is violated when a state party fails to take steps to combat practices harmful to the well-being of a person or MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE